PodHome MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'schedule or publish' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is organized but could be more integrated. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure is slightly fragmented between the summary and args section.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical context like permissions, side effects, and error handling. The output schema reduces need for return value details, but behavioral gaps remain significant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description compensates by listing all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding value beyond the schema. It clarifies 'show' uses 'slugs configured in PODHOME_SHOWS' and explains the publish_now/publish_date relationship, though more detail on formats/constraints would help.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('schedule or publish') and resource ('an episode'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_episode' and 'modify_episode' by focusing on scheduling/publishing rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'list_episodes'), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., episode must exist), when to choose scheduling vs. immediate publishing, or how it relates to siblings like 'modify_episode' for episode changes. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.